Re: [RFC] [Discussion] array_get and array_has functions

On Sat, Apr 11, 2026, at 5:30 AM, Barel wrote: > After the discussion here and after speaking to other developers, I > have decided to drop the dot notation entirely from this RFC and only > leave the option to use an array path. Using dot (or similar) notations > can be easily achieved using a simple explode or more complex code if > we need to do more complex setups like escaping. The main goal of the > RFC has always been being able to handle dynamic paths. The > implementation has also been updated and is now much simpler > > Cheers > > Carlos "4) Using dot or similar notations " This should be bullet point 3, not no 4. I agree with Tim that an invalid path segment should error in some way, rather than just using the default. If a non-int/string path segment is encountered, it 100% of the time means the developer screwed up in some way so they should know to fix it. One of the most common uses for structure-unclear arrays I run into is (bad) APIs that have a value that is either a primitive or an array of primitives. Can you include an example showing how these functions would help in that situation? Eg, this JSON: { "state": "IL" } vs {"state": ["IL", "CA", "NY"] } Presumably you also have some real-world cases in mind that you've run into. Can you include versions of those in the examples to get a better sense of what usage would look like in practice? To Tim's naming point, perhaps array_has_path() / array_get_path()? (Or maybe path first, not sure.) --Larry Garfield